CAYUGA - Village trustees and engineers are still hammering out the details of a solution to Cayuga's wastewater effluent problems. The board of trustees held a special meeting Wednesday night after having reviewed a number of solutions proposed by engineers in a preliminary report, but they weren't ready to decide.

At an earlier meeting Feb. 17, the board heard a presentation from MRB Group, engineers for the construction on its wastewater treatment plant. MRB recommended two options from an original menu of 12, with total projected costs for each option:

Option A, a Sequential Batch Reactor at $3.1 million and Option B, an Activated Sludge System with discharge into the Seneca River at $2.3 million.

Engineers Ryan Colvin and William Davis explained upfront costs based on the type of system and the volume required to be produced by a retrofitted wastewater plant.

Terry Deuel, an Environmental Facilities Corporation financial consultant, listened to engineers' recommendations and suggested possible financial grant support and/or low interest loans which could have an impact on the choice.

He also advised the board to consult with the village attorney before any final decisions to make sure the village doesn't incur unnecessary liability.

The discussion shifted its focus briefly to a sewer extension for 22 residences along Manitou Road and Lake Street that the village was going to include in the project. But the complexity of that issue took the focus off the village's primary task, to bring its wastewater treatment into compliance with the Department of Environmental Conservation

standards within the timeline suggested in a consent order it received in October.

Engineers prepared a preliminary timeline for the village board, indicating it should be ready to develop grant and funding submittals in February and secure short-term financing through Bond Anticipation Notes. But the board is still considering its options.

It may make sewer extensions for roads within the village a separate project. Engineers indicated that adding new sewer lines to the system at a later time would not affect the capacity of the treatment plant since projected flow would be designed to handle a larger capacity than it currently serves.

Trustee Chris Ryan questioned some of the engineers' conclusions and wanted to know why they recommended the more expensive alternatives without considering the source of the pollution in the system. He noted that Dan Patterson, wastewater treatment operator, had been taking regular samples and the pollutants being discharged in the effluent were much lower than samples taken during the spike period.

Ryan mentioned Beacon Bay Marina as the possible source, and, while engineers agreed that could be true, it would have to be verified in coordination with marina owners to take samples when the marina dumps its waste from boats into the system.

“I can't be paid to tell you what you want to hear,” Colvin said, indicating that, while it was important to find the source, the system still needs to be modified.

Besides the Sequential Batch Reactor and the Activated Sludge System, engineers described a Vegetative Sand Bed system where a sand filter bed lies under water with vegetation growing on top. The sludge waste is taken by bacteria in the sand and remains to be clarified. While this method has higher upfront costs - $5.3 million - it is a “green” solution that could potentially be 20 percent funded by new grant money for green projects, according to Deuel. One drawback - vegetation doesn't grow in the six winter months that the treatment plant would still function.

Staff writer Kathleen Barran can be reached at 253-5311 ext. 238 or kathleen.barran@lee.net